The WoodenBoat Forum is sponsored by WoodenBoat Publications, publisher of WoodenBoat magazine. The Forum is a free service, and much like the "free" content on Public Radio, we hope you will support WoodenBoat by subscribing to this fabulous magazine. To get WoodenBoat delivered to your door or computer, mobile device of choice, etc, click WB Subscriptions.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ. You'll find answers to the frequently asked questions as well as basic rules. No need to register unless you would like to participate, although some images will only show if you are registered/logged-in.

You will need to register
before you can post: click the red register link or the register tab, above, right.

Selling/self promotion postings are verboten on the Forum. To advertise, take a look at WoodenBoat Advertising, or use your Google Adwords account if you want to advertise on the Forum.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by Dan McCosh

#1 is easy. The 1974 OPEC oil embargo is the only time there has been a significant downturn in crude oil consumption--i.e., actually using less energy. The impact was enormous, and not much of it good. #2 assumes "ignoring" it means not attempting to reverse the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. A more likely reaction is to deal with the impact of the change. Much like moving to higher ground when the tide comes in, rather than stopping the tide.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by Dan McCosh

#1 is easy. The 1974 OPEC oil embargo is the only time there has been a significant downturn in crude oil consumption--i.e., actually using less energy. The impact was enormous, and not much of it good. #2 assumes "ignoring" it means not attempting to reverse the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. A more likely reaction is to deal with the impact of the change. Much like moving to higher ground when the tide comes in, rather than stopping the tide.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by Peerie Maa

True, but there is an "Ah But". We have drawn lines on maps and set up vested interests to keep those lines exactly where they are now.

How may refugees poured, and are still pouring into europe? How many countries are, or are becoming a big melting pot? Imperial and colonial state boundaries are a comparative new development, before that city states and duchies, before that tribal territory. Of course there was Rome. We are still acting under the influence and example of Imperial Rome. But when climate and population pressures are big enough old national borders will not matter. When 20+ million people are on the move stopping them at a line on a map is not an option.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by Too Little Time

There is a comment in a later reply that illustrates this clubbing: The fact will always remain, though, that science succeeded in understanding the presence and anthropogenic origin of global warming, and as a conclusion, that we should do something about it."

Science doesn't force us to do anything. It can throw up questions of what we "ought" to do (whether that "ought" is instrumental or based on ideas of morality) but it's how we deal with scientific evidence (is it objective? reliable? should we act on the conclusions?) that leads to action. And sometimes that action, taken by law makers, "forces" people to do things. But that's done by people, not science.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by downthecreek

Science doesn't force us to do anything. It can throw up questions of what we "ought" to do (whether that "ought" is instrumental or based on ideas of morality) but it's how we deal with scientific evidence (is it objective? reliable? should we act on the conclusions?) that leads to action. And sometimes that action, taken by law makers, "forces" people to do things. But that's done by people, not science.

Deriving "ought" from "is" - the classic naturalistic fallacy.

Ah, here is downthecreek lecturing us about logic. Remember, this is the person that swallowed the lies that the Italians told about Amanda Knox. Are you prepared to apologize for your rude and insulting manner in that fiasco? ACB did; hope you will have the integrity to do so as well.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by skuthorp

How may refugees poured, and are still pouring into europe? How many countries are, or are becoming a big melting pot? Imperial and colonial state boundaries are a comparative new development, before that city states and duchies, before that tribal territory. Of course there was Rome. We are still acting under the influence and example of Imperial Rome. But when climate and population pressures are big enough old national borders will not matter. When 20+ million people are on the move stopping them at a line on a map is not an option.

What is the name of that island off your coast that is full of boat people?

A wall on the Mexican border anyone?

Any state with an army could use force to stop migration if the politicians in their government decided to do so, with extreme prejudice. Consider Gaza for a small scale example which was just a demonstration not an attempt to actually cross a border.

It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.
The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by LeeG

pretty sure the biggest drop in oil consumption was 1980-‘84

I didn't go far enough with the data. Still the chart shows a direct relationship between economic activity and oil consumption, and also shows how the dramatic improvement in auto efficiency in 1975 was accompanied by a steep increase in oil consumption.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by Dan McCosh

I didn't go far enough with the data. Still the chart shows a direct relationship between economic activity and oil consumption, and also shows how the dramatic improvement in auto efficiency in 1975 was accompanied by a steep increase in oil consumption.

And why one should consider what happens to our economy when supply is constrained due to depletion and demand elsewhere in the world. It’ll be a heck of a surprise to find funding for infrastructure when fuel tax revenue goes down. I wonder how much of that increase is Jevon’s paradox, shift to light trucks/suvs and growing economy.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by LeeG

And why one should consider what happens to our economy when supply is constrained due to depletion and demand elsewhere in the world. It’ll be a heck of a surprise to find funding for infrastructure when fuel tax revenue goes down. I wonder how much of that increase is Jevon’s paradox, shift to light trucks/suvs and growing economy.

Might note that increasing fuel efficiency of a specific vehicle is equivalent to reducing the price of fuel. That tends to increase consumption. The jump in fuel efficiency starting in 1975 was mainly due to the introduction of catalytic converters--on all types of light vehicles

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by downthecreek

Science doesn't force us to do anything. It can throw up questions of what we "ought" to do (whether that "ought" is instrumental or based on ideas of morality) but it's how we deal with scientific evidence (is it objective? reliable? should we act on the conclusions?) that leads to action. And sometimes that action, taken by law makers, "forces" people to do things. But that's done by people, not science.

Deriving "ought" from "is" - the classic naturalistic fallacy.

I believe I said science was used as a club to force people to ...

The clubbing was done by the poster who wrote "we should do." That poster is not the only one who does the clubbing. We have other posters who write about the dangers of a changing climate who use that fear to force us to adopt their opinion. And they do it by influencing legislation using a claim of science.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by Peerie Maa

What is the name of that island off your coast that is full of boat people?

A wall on the Mexican border anyone?

Any state with an army could use force to stop migration if the politicians in their government decided to do so, with extreme prejudice. Consider Gaza for a small scale example which was just a demonstration not an attempt to actually cross a border.

What is the name of that island thousands of miles away off the coast of another country that england thinks is thiers and keeps by force.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Horsefeathers. Science is used to figure out what is happening and what is likely to happen if we pursue various courses of action (or inaction) in response. All else is policy, various examples of which may be recommended or preferred by individual scientists, but is not science per se.

Of course, the science may indicate very clearly that taking no or insignificant action is incredibly stupid and shortsighted, but in that case, the club is not science, it is the real world. You know, that thing that doesn't go away or change whether you believe in it or not.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by pcford

Ah, here is downthecreek lecturing us about logic. Remember, this is the person that swallowed the lies that the Italians told about Amanda Knox. Are you prepared to apologize for your rude and insulting manner in that fiasco? ACB did; hope you will have the integrity to do so as well.

I’ll say this for you, pcford. When it comes to nursing grudges, you are the champion. Tell you what – why don’t you resurrect that entire ten year old thread? Then people here can see, or remind themselves, just how vicious and vindictive your posts on it were. Also, my own position, which was this:
1. There was a great deal of evidence against Knox
2. I didn’t claim to know then if she was guilty or not (and I still don’t)
3. I thought it should be left to the Italian courts to decide (rather than internet chatter or pressure groups in America)

As it happens, the final report of the Italian court confirmed that there was, indeed, a great deal of evidence against Knox. The verdict was not that she was “innocent”, but rather that, on balance, the evidence was not quite sufficient to convict. In a Scottish court, the verdict as described would probably be “not proven”. As far as I was concerned, that was (and is) the end of it.

What we would not see, though, was a thread that quickly disappeared. But I saw it and several others certainly did too. In that opening post you gloated openly about the humiliation you were so looking forward to inflicting on those you saw as enemies when Knox was acquitted (interestingly, that was some time before the final hearing) And you described yourself in that post as a “small” man. I thought then and have thought from time to time since, that you never posted a truer word.

It seems your appetite for gloating and humiliation has yet to be satisfied, even ten years on. Well, small man, keeping gnawing away at the bone if you want, but I’m done with it.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by Too Little Time

I believe I said science was used as a club to force people to ...

The clubbing was done by the poster who wrote "we should do." That poster is not the only one who does the clubbing. We have other posters who write about the dangers of a changing climate who use that fear to force us to adopt their opinion. And they do it by influencing legislation using a claim of science.

(Have to go now.)

Odd - I just responded, but it doesn't seem to have been posted. Anyway - I'm sure you are right. You are the last person I would have expected to post something so imprecise - you are yourself a scientist, I believe. I think I must have scanned the thread rather too fast - because the rain stopped and I was in a hurry to go and do some fitting out........Anyway, this time I'll read more slowly.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by downthecreek

I’ll say this for you, pcford. When it comes to nursing grudges, you are the champion. Tell you what – why don’t you resurrect that entire ten year old thread? Then people here can see, or remind themselves, just how vicious and vindictive your posts on it were. Also, my own position, which was this:
1. There was a great deal of evidence against Knox
2. I didn’t claim to know then if she was guilty or not (and I still don’t)
3. I thought it should be left to the Italian courts to decide (rather than internet chatter or pressure groups in America)

As it happens, the final report of the Italian court confirmed that there was, indeed, a great deal of evidence against Knox. The verdict was not that she was “innocent”, but rather that, on balance, the evidence was not quite sufficient to convict. In a Scottish court, the verdict as described would probably be “not proven”. As far as I was concerned, that was (and is) the end of it.

What we would not see, though, was a thread that quickly disappeared. But I saw it and several others certainly did too. In that opening post you gloated openly about the humiliation you were so looking forward to inflicting on those you saw as enemies when Knox was acquitted (interestingly, that was some time before the final hearing) And you described yourself in that post as a “small” man. I thought then and have thought from time to time since, that you never posted a truer word.

It seems your appetite for gloating and humiliation has yet to be satisfied, even ten years on. Well, small man, keeping gnawing away at the bone if you want, but I’m done with it.

JAMES really lit into me the other day. Hurtful, very hurtful, i had to go into my safe space.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

LOL, Climate change, and our species effect on it is not going to be halted by anyone's 'opinion'. Whether you come to the conclusion that anthropogenic effects are real or not will not make one iota of difference. The phrase used here "forced by fear" is highly risible indeed given the weight of qualified research.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

That's one of the reason why Darwin waited 23 years to publish -- he knew what the response would be.

And the Ingstad's -- they received nothing but scorn until they actually pulled Viking relics out of the hill in Newfoundland.

Lots of examples...

For the most part, resistance to new inputs is one of the safety feature of science and scientists. It helps insure that we don't go off half cocked at every new idea presented. Some people and their achievements get hurt in the process but human nature is part of the makeup of scientists too. At least we have not wasted lots of money and energy chasing cold fusion.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by Tom Lathrop

For the most part, resistance to new inputs is one of the safety feature of science and scientists. It helps insure that we don't go off half cocked at every new idea presented. Some people and their achievements get hurt in the process but human nature is part of the makeup of scientists too. At least we have not wasted lots of money and energy chasing cold fusion.

Yes indeed Tom, but the history of science is full of examples of people who Do Not Want To Admit that what they've been teaching all their lives is wrong. Wegener's theory of the movement of continents is another example.

And I don't want to be tarred with the brush I just dipped, but TwoDot, Darwin was been an interest of mine for a long time. That article you quote seems like nonsense.

The books and article published by Stephen Jay Gould are extremely informative about science -- it's history and personalities.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by Dave Hadfield

Yes indeed Tom, but the history of science is full of examples of people who Do Not Want To Admit that what they've been teaching all their lives is wrong. Wegener's theory of the movement of continents is another example.

And I don't want to be tarred with the brush I just dipped, but TwoDot, Darwin was been an interest of mine for a long time. That article you quote seems like nonsense.

The books and article published by Stephen Jay Gould are extremely informative about science -- it's history and personalities.

Dave, when I first heard about plate tectonics in the 1950's, it was like a missing puzzle piece had been found that I did not know existed. Suddenly it all made sense and all macro geologic elements could be projected both forward and backward in time. The long chain of the Hawaiian Islands that we traversed four times going to and from the war appeared simple to understand, in a simplistic way of course. Looking down from high flying aircraft at the folds in the earth suddenly made sense. How it could be denied or even debated made no sense at all. Global warming is equally clear to anyone willing to actually see as well as look at the evidence around us.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by Tom Lathrop

Dave, when I first heard about plate tectonics in the 1950's, it was like a missing puzzle piece had been found that I did not know existed. Suddenly it all made sense and all macro geologic elements could be projected both forward and backward in time. The long chain of the Hawaiian Islands that we traversed four times going to and from the war appeared simple to understand, in a simplistic way of course. Looking down from high flying aircraft at the folds in the earth suddenly made sense. How it could be denied or even debated made no sense at all. Global warming is equally clear to anyone willing to actually see as well as look at the evidence around us.

Nobody knew of the convection currents in the mantle that drives it, so no one could comprehend that such massive forces could possibly act on solid rock. (See Farnk!'s inability to comprehend). It was only when the evidence became over whelming that there was a paradigm shift.

It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.
The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by LeeG

pretty sure the biggest drop in oil consumption was 1980-‘84

When I was young, there was a widely accepted myth that a carburetor had been invented that would get 70 mpg, but GM bought the patent and kept it off the market. I was young, but was of the opinion, that if GM could make a car that used less gas without losing any performance, they would build it. Also, patent protection was only 17 years.

An article in "Trailer Boat" magazine was quite timely; Smaller engines don't use less gas, they just do less work. It went on to remind us how work equal weight times distance and such.

We did reach a point where squeezing more miles out of a gallon of gas became important for selling cars. Cars got smaller. Fuel injection became standard. Transmission ratios were played with.

My question number one seems to have been misinterpreted. What is the downside of simply using less energy and getting off of oil, even if global warming is a hoax?

If an SUV, same model, gets 3 more mpg, why would that not be a good thing.

Personally, I'd like to see separate pumps, kind of like when we had leaded and unleaded gas, and vehicles over a certain weight pay more per gallon.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by Too Little Time

I guess I can play along your line of thought.

I am sure you see it that way. I can understand it that way. But I can also see it as using science to force our opinions on people. I think if you had used seat belts as your example then there is less of a social responsibility argument and more of forcing opinions on people. Motorcycle helmets seem to be another good example.

There is a comment in a later reply that illustrates this clubbing: The fact will always remain, though, that science succeeded in understanding the presence and anthropogenic origin of global warming, and as a conclusion, that we should do something about it."

That does say that science forces us to act at least in that instance in a certain manner. That is what I object to. That is what many people object to.

I am happy with the phrasing.

There are certainly a few people who deny science, they get a lot of media time, and many people find the same positions to be more acceptable than "I don't want to."

Science shows us the facts, in this case man is stuffing up the planet in a certain way. The facts indicate that if we don't do something the human race will be in trouble. So you object to being told a truth?

The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

What is the name of that island thousands of miles away off the coast of another country that england thinks is thiers and keeps by force.

Bobby, are you unaware that the country that tried to take over the Falklands by force was NOT Britain.

Why are you so un-American that you hate the idea of self determination? Why are you so un-American that you feel a people should be ruled by people from another country? That is what you want of the Falklanders - you want them to be taken over by another country despite their own wishes.

And finally, why do you refuse to answer every time such questions are asked of you? Do you lack the honesty, the integrity, or the IQ?

Re: Why do so many deny science?

When I was young, there was a widely accepted myth that a carburetor had been invented that would get 70 mpg, but GM bought the patent and kept it off the market.

If an SUV, same model, gets 3 more mpg, why would that not be a good thing.

Personally, I'd like to see separate pumps, kind of like when we had leaded and unleaded gas, and vehicles over a certain weight pay more per gallon.

Those old enough to remember a comic strip called Gasoline Alley will recall the pills that they put in the tank full of water that turned water into fuel.

When the Government first came up with fuel use restrictions in the early 1970's, they based it on ton miles instead of miles per gallon. This, of course allowed the larger gas guzzlers to stay in the auto showrooms and on the roads. It was necessary at the time to prevent Detroit from going belly up and the rules were changed slowly to be more realistic in actually reducing fuel use in private vehicles.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by Peerie Maa

Nobody knew of the convection currents in the mantle that drives it, so no one could comprehend that such massive forces could possibly act on solid rock. (See Farnk!'s inability to comprehend). It was only when the evidence became over whelming that there was a paradigm shift.

I look at your thought as more of a chicken and egg exercise. Even without knowledge of the moving core or mantel, just looking at the folds in the eastern US mountains from a high flying airplane is enough evidence to show that this portion of the earths crust must be moving toward the west. I was involved with the early trans Atlantic communication cables and knowledge of the mid ocean ridge and what was going on down there was apparent. Detection of alternating magnetic polarity of the earth's field was conclusively proven by the matching banded ejecta each side of the ridge.

Knowledge of either the crust or mantel movement is enough to infer the existence of the other.

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Many things seem obvious in retrospect. Inertia in science isn't a bad thing as long as it's not too extreme; most new ideas are wrong, and we need good evidence before accepting them. Those examples show clearly how very basic ideas can be revised as we learn more.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
for nature cannot be fooled."

Re: Why do so many deny science?

Originally Posted by John Smith

When I was young, there was a widely accepted myth that a carburetor had been invented that would get 70 mpg, but GM bought the patent and kept it off the market. I was young, but was of the opinion, that if GM could make a car that used less gas without losing any performance, they would build it. Also, patent protection was only 17 years.

An article in "Trailer Boat" magazine was quite timely; Smaller engines don't use less gas, they just do less work. It went on to remind us how work equal weight times distance and such.

We did reach a point where squeezing more miles out of a gallon of gas became important for selling cars. Cars got smaller. Fuel injection became standard. Transmission ratios were played with.

My question number one seems to have been misinterpreted. What is the downside of simply using less energy and getting off of oil, even if global warming is a hoax?

If an SUV, same model, gets 3 more mpg, why would that not be a good thing.

Personally, I'd like to see separate pumps, kind of like when we had leaded and unleaded gas, and vehicles over a certain weight pay more per gallon.

Using fossil fuel is like having a debit card to a huge sum of inherited wealth. More people get more cards and everyone has greater ease in meeting basic needs as well as other needs, wants and desires. Pretty soon we have a huge economy that’s built on increasing the daily draw on each card.
Who wants to reduce their access to all that wealth? What pleasure seeking person says “I’ve had enough fun, I think I will refrain from buying non-essential goods and services”
Using less fuel by choice? Why would anyone do that unless forced to by circumstances?